Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Seattle bans booze!

No, wait, it's just one neighborhood.

And don't worry. It's only the 30 or so specific brands that they've determined that poor people like.

Because we know what's best for them.

Just like how us anti-Walmart activists know that poor people having the chance to feed their kids the inexpensive fresh vegetables that a mid-town Walmart would sell isn't worth the chance that some poor people would work there when we know they would be better off working somewhere else.

It's because we know what's best. The instinct to just get poor people out of our sight has nothing to do with it.


who doesn't want a nurturing mother, thanks.

But who also is cranky today.


LaReinaCobre said...

I'm no medical doctor but I sure don't think that a homeless alcoholic is cured by having to walk to another part of time to get their booze.

Chalicechick said...

More cops is OK with me--as long as the yuppies understand that if they demand a police station, the police will probably pay for it in increased traffic tickets.

But banning only the cheap alcohol sucks.


Joel Monka said...

Well, it definitely tells me what areas to avoid next time I fly out there to visit family- some of those on the list are my favorite brands! Guess I'll just have to stay and spend my money outside Seattle city limits from now on!

Anonymous said...

That article did not make it sound like it was "because we know what's best for them", but rather like "not in my backyard --let's make them go elsewhere."
Are you sure you're not seeing mothers where there aren't any?

Anonymous said...

Agreed with kim -- it doesn't sound like they're mothering the street drunks, but just plain not wanting them being drunk in that neighborhood. I'd consider Seattle's decision to house homeless alcoholics and let them drink there as more "motherly," or as the shrinks call it, "enabling."